19174 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Notices 

1 Xuzhou Jinjiang is a participant in both the 

administrative review and new shipper review. 

2On July 3, 2006, the Department issued its 

notice of rescission of antidumping duty new 

shipper reviews of Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai 

Sunbeauty and Qingdao Wentai, for the period 

September 1, 2004, and February 28, 2005. See 

Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 37902 

(July 3, 2006) (‘‘Rescission of New Shipper 

Review’’). Accordingly, this administrative review 

only covers these companies’ entries not already 

covered by the above-referenced new shipper 

reviews. Therefore, this administrative review, for 

Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty and Qingdao 

Wentai, covers entries from March 1, 2005, through 

August 31, 2005. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–848] 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Results And Rescission, In Part, 

of 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On October 10, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published the preliminary 

results of its administrative and new 

shipper reviews of the antidumping 

duty order on freshwater crawfish tail 

meat from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). See Freshwater Crawfish 

Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 2004/2005 

Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews, 71 FR 59432 (October 10, 

2006) (Preliminary Results). Based on 

our analysis of the record, including 

information obtained since the 

preliminary results, we have made 

changes to the margin calculations for 

Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xiping 

Opeck’’), Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xuzhou Jinjiang’’) and 

Qingdao Jinyongxiang Aquatic Foods 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Qingdao JYX’’). See Final 

Results of Review section, below. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot 

Fullerton or Erin Begnal, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1386 or (202) 482–

1442, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 10, 2006, the Department 

published the preliminary results of its 

administrative and new shipper reviews 

of the antidumping duty order on 

freshwater crawfish tail meat from the 

PRC, and invited parties to comment on 

the preliminary results. See Preliminary 

Results. The administrative review 

covers six exporters or producer/ 

exporters: (1) Jiangsu Jiushoutang 

Organisms–Manufactures Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Jiangsu JOM’’); (2) Shanghai 

Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai 

Sunbeauty’’); (3) Qingdao JYX; and (4) 

Qingdao Wentai Trading Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Qingdao Wentai’’); (5) Yancheng Hi–

King Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Yancheng Hi–King’’); and (6) Xuzhou 

Jinjiang.1 The period of review (‘‘POR’’) 

for all respondents subject to this 

administrative review is September 1, 

2004, through August 31, 2005.2 The 

new shipper review covers two 

producer/exporters: (1) Xiping Opeck; 

and (2) Xuzhou Jinjiang. The period of 

review for Xiping Opeck is September 1, 

2004, through August 31, 2005, while 

the period of review for Xuzhou Jinjiang 

is September 1, 2004, through October 

5, 2005. 

On October 30, 2006, subsequent to 

the issuance of the Preliminary Results, 

the Department received publicly 

available information, for purposes of 

valuing factors of production, from the 

Crawfish Processors Alliance, the 

Louisiana Department of Agriculture 

and Forestry, and Bob Odom, 

Commissioner (collectively, ‘‘Domestic 

Parties’’), pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3). See Letter to the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, from 

Domestic Parties, regarding Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China: 2004–05 

Administrative Review (October 30, 

2006); see also Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China: 2004–05 New Shipper Review 

(October 30, 2006). On November 9, 

2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang submitted 

rebuttal surrogate value information 

responding to Domestic Parties’ October 

30, 2006, surrogate value information. 

See Letter to the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, from Xuzhou Jinjiang, 

regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat from the People’s Rep. of China; 

Surrogate Value Rebuttal (November 9, 

2006). 

On November 9, 2006, the Department 

also received case briefs from Domestic 

Parties as well as Xuzhou Jinjiang. See 

Case Brief from Domestic Parties, 

regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China: 2004–05 Administrative Review 

(November 9, 2006), Case Brief from 

Domestic Parties, regarding Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China: 2004–05 New 

Shipper Review (November 9, 2006), 

Case Brief from Xuzhou Jinjiang, 

regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat from the People’s Republic Of 

China; Comment on the Preliminary 

Results (November 9, 2006). 

Additionally, on November 14, 2006, we 

received rebuttal briefs from Domestic 

Parties and Xuzhou Jinjiang. See 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 

People’s Republic of China: Petitioner’s 

Rebuttal Brief (April 14, 2006); see also 

Rebuttal Brief from Domestic Parties, 

regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China: 2004–05 New Shipper Review 

(November 14, 2006); and Rebuttal Brief 

from Xuzhou Jinjiang, regarding 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Rep. Of China; Comment on 

the Preliminary Results (November 14, 

2006). No case briefs were submitted by 

Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty, or 

Qingdao Wentai. Although petitioners 

initially requested a hearing in the 

administrative and new shipper 

reviews, this request was subsequently 

withdrawn. 

On February 2, 2007, the Department 

placed revised expected non–market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) wage rates on its 

website, (see http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages/index.html) and offered 

interested parties an opportunity to 

submit comments on these revised wage 

rates, as the period for submission of 

case briefs and rebuttal briefs had 

already passed. On February 7, 2007, 

Xuzhou Jinjiang submitted comments 

on the revised wage rates. See Xuzhou 

Jinjiang Wage Rate Comments, dated 

February 7, 2007. No other comments 

on the revised wage rates were 

submitted. 

Scope of Order 

The product covered by this 

antidumping duty order is freshwater 

crawfish tail meat, in all its forms 

(whether washed or with fat on, 

whether purged or unpurged), grades, 

and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or 

chilled; and regardless of how it is 

packed, preserved, or prepared. 

Excluded from the scope of the order are 

live crawfish and other whole crawfish, 

whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. 

Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of 

any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater 

crawfish tail meat is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 

1605.40.10.90, which are the HTSUS 

numbers for prepared foodstuffs, 

indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and 

other, as introduced by U.S. Customs 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Notices 19175 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) in 2000, 

and HTSUS numbers 0306.19.00.10 and 

0306.29.00.00, which are reserved for 

fish and crustaceans in general. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes 

only. The written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive. 

Separate Rates 

Qingdao JYX, Xiping Opeck, and 

Xuzhou Jinjiang have requested 

separate, company–specific 

antidumping duty rates. In our 

preliminary results, we found that 

Qingdao JYX, Xiping Opeck, and 

Xuzhou Jinjiang had met the criteria for 

the application of a separate 

antidumping duty rate. See Preliminary 

Results. We have not received any 

information since the Preliminary 

Results with respect to Qingdao JYX, 

Xiping Opeck, and Xuzhou Jinjiang 

which would warrant reconsideration of 

our separate–rates determinations with 

respect to these companies. Therefore, 

for these final results, we will continue 

to calculate company–specific separate 

rates for these respondents. 

Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department stated its intention to 

partially rescind the administrative 

review for Yancheng Hi–King, as the 

firm informed the Department that it did 

not export the subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR. The 

Department also stated its intention to 

rescind the administrative review for 

Qingdao Wentai, as the Department 

determined that Qingdao Wentai’s 

single sale, covered by both the new 

shipper review and administrative 

review, was not bona fide and could not 

serve as the basis for the calculation of 

a dumping margin. See Rescission of 

New Shipper Review. No comments on 

the Department’s intention to rescind 

the administrative review for Yancheng 

Hi–King and Qingdao Wentai were 

submitted by any interested party. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, 

we are rescinding the administrative 

review with respect to Yancheng Hi–

King and Qingdao Wentai. See 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3). 

Adverse Facts Available - Jiangsu JOM 

& Shanghai Sunbeauty 

For purposes of the Preliminary 

Results, the Department applied facts 

available to sales by Jiangsu JOM and 

Shanghai Sunbeauty, as Jiangsu JOM 

would not permit the Department to 

verify information placed on the record, 

and Shanghai Sunbeauty informed the 

Department that it would not participate 

further in this review and did not 

respond to the Department’s requests for 

information. Therefore, we determined 

that neither company cooperated to the 

best of its ability. See Memorandum to 

James C. Doyle, Director, from 

Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 

regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Application of 

Adverse Facts Available to Shanghai 

Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd., dated 

October 2, 2006, and Memorandum to 

James C. Doyle, Director, from 

Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 

regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Application of 

Adverse Facts Available to Jiangsu 

Jiushoutang Organisms–Manufacturers 

Co., Ltd., dated October 2, 2006. No 

comments on this determination were 

submitted by any interested party. 

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, 

we find it appropriate, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(D) and 776(b) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), to use adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’) as the basis for the final results 

of review for Jiangsu JOM and Shanghai 

Sunbeauty, which are part of the PRC–

wide entity, as the Department was 

unable to verify Jiangsu JOM’s and 

Shanghai Sunbeauty’s questionnaire 

responses concerning their eligibility for 

a separate rate. Consistent with the 

statute, court precedent, and its normal 

practice, the Department has assigned 

the rate of 223.01 percent, the highest 

rate on the record of any segment of the 

proceeding, to the PRC–wide entity 

(including Shanghai Sunbeauty and 

Jiangsu JOM) as AFA. See, e.g., 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, and Final 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 

(April 22, 2002). As discussed further 

below, this rate has been corroborated. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on the 

facts otherwise available and on 

‘‘secondary information,’’ the 

Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

the Department’s disposal. To 

‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that 

the information used has probative 

value. See Statement of Administrative 

Action (‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act 

(‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep. No. 103–316 at 

870 (1994). The Department has 

determined that to have probative value, 

information must be reliable and 

relevant. See SAA at 870; see also 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from 

Japan, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 

6, 1996). The SAA also states that 

independent sources used to corroborate 

such evidence may include, for 

example, published price lists, official 

import statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. See Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra–High 

Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators 

from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 

2003), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra–High 

Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators 

from Japan, 68 FR 62560 (November 5, 

2003); and Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine 

from Canada, 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 

2005). 

The reliability of the AFA rate was 

determined by the calculation of the 

margin based on sales and production 

data of a respondent in a prior review, 

and on the most appropriate surrogate 

value information available to the 

Department, chosen from submissions 

by the parties in that review, as well as 

information gathered by the Department 

itself. Furthermore, the calculation of 

this margin was subject to comment 

from interested parties in the 

proceeding Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Revew, and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002) 

(‘‘1999–2000 Review’’). The Department 

has received no information to date that 

warrants revisiting the issue of the 

reliability of the rate calculation itself. 

This rate has been used as AFA in every 

subsequent segment of this proceeding 

and the Department has received no 

comments challenging the reliability of 

the margin. No information has been 

presented in the current review. Thus, 

the Department finds that the margin 

calculated in the 1999–2000 review is 

reliable. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
19176 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Notices 

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996), the Department 

disregarded the highest margin in that 

case as adverse best information 

available (the predecessor to facts 

available) because the margin was based 

on another company’s uncharacteristic 

business expense resulting in an 

unusually high margin. Similarly, the 

Department does not apply a margin 

that has been discredited. See D & L 

Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 

1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the 

Department will not use a margin that 

has been judicially invalidated). None of 

these unusual circumstances are present 

here. As there is no information on the 

record of this review that indicates that 

this rate is not relevant as AFA for the 

PRC–wide entity, we determine that this 

rate is relevant. Because the rate is both 

reliable and relevant it has probative 

value. Accordingly, we determine that 

the highest rate determined in any 

segment of this administrative 

proceeding (i.e., 223.01 percent) is 

corroborated (i.e., it has probative 

value). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

In the case and rebuttal briefs 

received from the parties after the 

Preliminary Results, we received 

comments on the surrogate values used 

to value labor, overhead, selling, general 

and administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), 

and profit. We also received comments 

regarding the bona fides of Xuzhou 

Jinjiang’s POR sales. Moreover, we 

received additional comments from 

Xuzhou Jinjiang in response to the 

Department’s February 2, 2007, request 

for comments on the revised expected 

NME wage rates. All issues raised in the 

case briefs and wage rate comments are 

addressed in the Memorandum to David 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, regarding Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results in the 2004/2005 Administrative 

and New Shipper Reviews of Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China (April 9, 2007) 

(‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’), 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the issues raised, all of which 

are in the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, is attached to this notice 

as Appendix I. Parties can find a 

complete discussion of all issues raised 

in the briefs and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), room B–099 of 

the Herbert H. Hoover Building. In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on the Web at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on the comments received from 

the interested parties, we have made 

changes to the margin calculations for 

Qingdao JYX, Xiping Opeck, and 

Xuzhou Jinjiang. For the final results, 

we have updated the surrogate value for 

labor. For a discussion of these changes, 

see the Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

antidumping duty margins exist: 

FRESHWATER CRAWFISH TAIL MEAT FROM THE PRC 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Qingdao Jinyongxiang Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. .......................................................................................................................... 50.98 

Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. ....................................................................................................................................................... 34.85 

Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. .......................................................................................................................................... 0.00 

PRC–wide Rate(including Jiangsu Jiushoutang Organisms–Manufactures Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading Co., 

Ltd.) .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 223.01 

For details on the calculation of the 

antidumping duty margin for Qingdao 

JYX, Xiping Opeck, and Xuzhou 

Jinjiang, see Memorandum to the File, 

through Christopher D. Riker, Program 

Manager from Scot Fullerton, Senior 

International Trade Analyst, regarding 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 

People’s Republic of China - Analysis 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

Administrative Review of Qingdao 

Jinyongxiang Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. 

(April, 9, 2007), Memorandum to the 

File, through Christopher D. Riker, 

Program Manager, from Erin Begnal, 

Senior International Trade Analyst, 

regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat From the People’s Republic of 

China - Analysis Memorandum for the 

Final Results of New Shipper Review of 

Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (April, 9, 

2007), and Memorandum to the File, 

through Christopher D. Riker, Program 

Manager, from Scot Fullerton, Senior 

International Trade Analyst, regarding 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 

People’s Republic of China - Analysis 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

New Shipper Review of Xuzhou Jinjiang 

Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (April, 9, 2007). 

Public versions of these memoranda are 

on file in the CRU. 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties 

The Department will determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. The Department 

will issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP within 15 

days of publication of the final results 

of this review. For assessment purposes 

for companies with a calculated rate, 

where possible, the Department 

calculated importer–specific assessment 

rates for freshwater crawfish tail meat 

from the PRC on a per–unit basis. 

Specifically, the Department divided the 

total dumping margins (calculated as 

the difference between normal value 

and export price) for each importer by 

the total quantity of subject 

merchandise sold to that importer 

during the POR to calculate a per–unit 

assessment amount. The Department 

will direct CBP to assess importer–

specific assessment rates based on the 

resulting per–unit (i.e., per–kilogram) 

rates by the weight in kilograms of each 

entry of the subject merchandise during 

the POR. 

Cash Deposits 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results for 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results, as 

provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act: (1) for subject merchandise 

exported by Qingdao JYX, Xiping 

Opeck, and Xuzhou Jinjiang, we will 

establish a per–kilogram cash deposit 

rate which will be equivalent to the 

company–specific weighted–average 

margin established in this review; (2) 

the cash–deposit rate for PRC exporters 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 73 / Tuesday, April 17, 2007 / Notices 19177 

1 In response to requests from petitioners and 

Patagonik, the Department extended the deadline 

for case briefs to January 8, 2006, and for rebuttal 

briefs to January 16, 2006. 

who received a separate rate in a prior 

segment of the proceeding will continue 

to be the rate assigned in that segment 

of the proceeding; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate (including Shanghai 

Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM), the cash–

deposit rate will be the PRC–wide rate 

of 223.01 percent; (4) for all non–PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise, the 

cash–deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporter that 

supplied that exporter. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

publication of the final results of the 

next administrative review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers of their responsibility 

under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a 

certificate regarding the reimbursement 

of antidumping duties prior to 

liquidation of the relevant entries 

during this review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

These reviews and notice are in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 

751(a)(2) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: April 9, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. 

Appendix I 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 2: Surrogate Wage Rate 

Company–Specific Issues 

Comment 3: Bona Fides of Xuzhou 

Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.’s Sales 

[FR Doc. E7–7199 Filed 4–16–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–357–812] 

Honey from Argentina: Final Results of 

New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 24, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of review in this proceeding. See 

Honey from Argentina: Preliminary 

Results of New Shipper Review, 71 FR 

67850 (November 24, 2006) (Preliminary 

Results). This new shipper review 

covers one exporter, Patagonik S.A. 

(Patagonik) and its affiliated supplier, 

Colmenares Santa Rosa (CSR), of subject 

merchandise to the United States. The 

period of review (POR) is December 1, 

2004, to December 31, 2005. The 

petitioners are the Sioux Honey 

Association and the American Honey 

Producers Association. Based on our 

analysis of comments received, the 

margin calculation for these final results 

does not differ from the preliminary 

results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Cordell or Robert James, Office 7, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0408 or 

(202) 482–0649, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 24, 2006, the 

Department published its Preliminary 

Results of this antidumping duty new 

shipper review of honey from 

Argentina. On December 15, 2006, the 

Federal Register published a correction 

notice due to typographical errors in the 

original preliminary results notice. See 

Corrections Honey From Argentina: 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Review (Corrections Notice), 71 FR 

75614 (December 15, 2006). Subsequent 

to publication of the Preliminary Results 

and the Corrections Notice, the 

Department issued an additional cost 

questionnaire on December 20, 2006, to 

which Patagonik responded on January 

3, 2007. In response to the Department’s 

invitation to comment on the 

preliminary results, petitioners 

submitted their case brief on January 8, 

2007, and Patagonik submitted its 

rebuttal brief on January 16, 2007.1 On 

January 31, 2007, the Department 

extended the final results until April 16, 

2007. See Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review: Honey from 

Argentina, 72 FR 4486 (January 31, 

2007). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

is honey from Argentina. The products 

covered are natural honey, artificial 

honey containing more than 50 percent 

natural honey by weight, preparations of 

natural honey containing more than 50 

percent natural honey by weight, and 

flavored honey. The subject 

merchandise includes all grades and 

colors of honey whether in liquid, 

creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk 

form, and whether packaged for retail or 

in bulk form. The merchandise is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States (HTSUS). Although 

the HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and Customs purposes, 

the Department’s written description of 

the merchandise under this order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this new 

shipper review are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(Decision Memorandum) from Stephen 

J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to David M. 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. A list of issues 

addressed in the Decision Memorandum 

is appended to this notice. The Decision 

Memorandum is on file in the CRU and 

can be accessed directly on the web at 

http://www.ita.doc.gov/. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made no changes to 

our preliminary results. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

dumping margins exist for the period 

December 1, 2004, through December 

31, 2005. 

Exporter 

Weighted Average Margin 

(percentage) 

Patagonik S.A. /Colmenares 

Santa Rosa S.R.L ............. 0.00 

Assessment 

The Department shall determine, and 

the CBP shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

we have calculated importer–specific 

assessment rates for the merchandise 

based on the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales made during the POR to 

the total customs value of the sales used 

to calculate those duties. The 

Department will issue appropriate ad 

valorem assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES